대여금
1. The claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The parties' assertion
A. On November 22, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 80,000,00 to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request, with the lack of the pre-tax funds.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not borrow money from the Defendant’s assertion, but not maintain internal relations with the Defendant, and cannot seek the return of the money as a donation made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to build a residence of a married person. Even if the money was lent, KRW 50,000,000 among the money was returned.
Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.
2. Even though there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the plaintiff received money, the reason that the plaintiff received it is a loan for consumption, and the defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to a loan for consumption if it is asserted that it was a loan for consumption.
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, etc.). The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account on November 22, 2012 is no dispute between the parties.
However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of all the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant, having been born from around 2011 to around February 16, 2013, ② the Defendant was pregnant on or around June 2012, ② the Defendant used the said money that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff as a deposit for full-time deposit when the Defendant was the director of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant used the said money transferred from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, ③ the Plaintiff was born, ③ cash in a monthly amount and the Plaintiff’s corporate card from the time when the Plaintiff began to meet with the Defendant to February 2, 2015.